If it is lying about what the Patriarch and the Metropolitan said, I am sure the the EP's public relations office will deny it within a few hours. Obviously the EP would not want to damage any further his relationship with Moscow because of a mendacious news report. So, in the meantime, let us patiently await the EP's press release.

I posted a news item from a reputable news source. That's how it started , and not in a "half-cocked and inflammatory manner."

I'm sorry, Father, but repeating unconfirmed media statements about a man you have admitted to having zero respect for merely reveals your personal bias. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure you would have expected confirmation regarding any statement made by the Russian Patriarch; and would be a little upset to see this kind of half-cocked and inflammatory thread regarding him. I know I would be.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

I'm sorry, Father, but repeating unconfirmed media statements about a man you have admitted to having zero respect for merely reveals your personal bias.

Who does not have a bias, pro or con, about this controversial Patriarch?

If you are correct, then we shall expect to see a rectification of the misreported comments issued within a few hours from the EP's media office. If they have misrepresented His Divine All-Holiness and Metr. Zizioulas to the extent that it may cause an intensification of the problems between Moscow and Constantinople, we can be sure he is horrified and he has already been on the telephone and arranging to have it corrected.

No doubt ( )the "Roman propaganda" machine is fabricating this bit of info. as well:

"Bartholomew I is being accompanied on his visit by Metropolitan Archbishop Gennadios of the Greek Orthodox in Italy and Malta, and exarch for Southern Europe; Metropolitan Athanasios of Helioupolis and Thiera; and Metropolitan Ioannis of Pergamo, Orthodox president of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

If you are correct, then we shall expect to see a rectification of the misreported comments issued within a few hours

I've got an even better idea.If you are correct in your "righteous anger", then surely we should see a response from His Beatitude Patriarch Alexy at this "affront" by His All Holiness even before His All Holiness "seeks to rectify" this pathetic online blurb you think qualifies as "news". Let's see what his Beatitude says.By the way, why should we expect a response "in a few hours"? Don't you realise the "article" is already three days old?But my guess is that both His All Holiness and His Beatitude, being Orthodox Monks, will be spending time in prayer rather than spending the eve and early hours of Cheesefare Sunday online in internet forums.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

But my guess is that both His All Holiness and His Beatitude, being Orthodox Monks, will be spending time in prayer rather than spending the eve and early hours of Cheesefare Sunday online in internet forums.

A bit judgemental?

I have a cardiac problem (several in fact) which impact on my life and my parish life. I am awake for about 4 hours and then asleep for about four hours. Sitting vertically, say at a computer, is less strain on the heart than lying horizontal; in fact I sleep propped up in a vertical position. I am on the waiting list for a heart transplant but it's unlikely I'll get it. The 8-12 hearts available in this country per annum are allocated on a point system and I am a bit too old and I have no family. First dibs goes to younger people who have spouses and children. Tonight I read and intoned Vespers and Matins from the Triodion in my "cell" in front of the holy icons. It's not ideal but I am not complaining (although it was a huge wrench to loose the ability to serve Liturgy about 4 years ago.) But thank God for everything, the good and the bad. One thing that has developed as I have fought back the idleness of being housebound is working with people on the Internet and acquainting them with the treasures of Orthodoxy. This happens mainly on a list I operate for Celtic Christianity - it was never started with the intention of evangelising but it has turned out that way.

I ask your forgiveness for posting the article which annoyed you and for our following correspondence.

If it is lying about what the Patriarch and the Metropolitan said, I am sure the the EP's public relations office will deny it within a few hours. Obviously the EP would not want to damage any further his relationship with Moscow because of a mendacious news report. So, in the meantime, let us patiently await the EP's press release.

I don't think lying is the best word to describe what the news article has done with the Patriarch's and Metropolitan's statements; I would choose the word paraphrase, instead. The article is probably very honest insofar as it goes, but it is still presenting to us their paraphrase of what the prelates said and spattering the text with just enough quotes to support their interpretation. Is this honest journalism? Maybe, if all you want is sound bites. But it's probably quite biased, considering the known pro-Vatican agenda of Asia News, and it's certainly not complete.

Theres no reason to deny the report, only its interpretation of what was actually said. The EP has been doing precisely what the report has conveyed for decades now. Are we still in denial about joint prayers taking place and that "agreed upon statments" dont exist?. Are we in denial that relations between the MP and the EP have been strained for many years now? And do any think the union of ROCOR and MP will have absolutely no effects on the Russian Church's role in ecumenism?

Are we in denial that relations between the MP and the EP have been strained for many years now?

Good point. A Vatican-leaning news agency sees discord between Moscow and Constantinople and thinks it big news. But can they grasp the fact that the two partiarchates have often been at odds with each other since the Russian Church dubbed Moscow the Third Rome several hundred years ago? This isn't news to the Orthodox. (FWIW, I don't mean to imply in my words that "Moscow: Third Rome" theory is the sole reason for such discord between the EP and MP, for I see both sides blameworthy in their divisiveness.)

Theres no reason to deny the report, only its interpretation of what was actually said. The EP has been doing precisely what the report has conveyed for decades now. Are we still in denial about joint prayers taking place and that "agreed upon statments" dont exist?. Are we in denial that relations between the MP and the EP have been strained for many years now? And do any think the union of ROCOR and MP will have absolutely no effects on the Russian Church's role in ecumenism?

Besides, I heard recently that some GOAers in the states here have dubbed His All-Holiness "Black Bart". There's no reason to be defensive since he obviously has some unhappy members in his constituency. Those in the OCA (myself included) have obviously not been afraid to voice our disagreements with our hierarchs.

Doubtless filtered through the "Roman propaganda" machine, I am sure Bartholomew, now that the text is available on-line, will peruse it and correct the world as to how the Roman's have twisted his words to serve their own evil machinations.

Is this really the complete text of the EP's address? I saw nothing whatsoever in his address regarding Moscow, and the only mention of Russia was totally in passing. I even did a text search for the name "Moscow" and found nothing.

Then again, after I reread yet again the Asia News article in this thread's OP, I saw nothing in the article to even remotely indicate that the EP ever said any one thing about Moscow--the only person reported to have spoken about Moscow was Metropolitan John (Zizioulas).

Then again, after I reread yet again the Asia News article in this thread's OP, I saw nothing in the article to even remotely indicate that the EP ever said any one thing about Moscow

HUH?

Rome (AsiaNews) – "A great love for Catholic-Orthodox unity as the only way to face the challenges of the modern world and a profound sadness for the self-imposed isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church are the main points Ecumenical Greek-Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I raised in his address to the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome."

Note the main points of the Patriarch's address:

1) Catholic-Orthodox unity needed to face the challenges of the modern world

2) the self-imposed isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church

The article then continues:

"They [Catholic-Orthodox unity and Russia's isolation] are also the main thrust in Metropolitan of Pergamon Ioannis Zizioulas’ comments to AsiaNews about the patriarch’s speech. For the latter the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church is one of “conservatism,” showing an inability to meet “the challenges of the modern world."

Now I have to agree that it is most strange that the news report says that the matter of the Russian Church's self-isolation was one of the two main points of the presentation by the EP. Yet the text which is now on the Web says not one word about this!!

It is doubly strange that the Metropolitan confirms that the Russian self-isolation was one of the major "thrusts" of the EP's speech. And yet again, it does not even exist in the text of the speech which is on the web.

Something is awry.

Has the online speech been edited so as not to offend the Russians? Did His Divine All-Holines realise he may have stepped over the line and virtually declared war on a sister Church from the precincts of the Vatican? Did the Vatican immediately see the enormous diplomatic gaffe in which it could be seen to be implicated? Why is the online text so very much at odds with the news report and with what the Metropolitan claimed the Patriarch's speech contained?

Rome (AsiaNews) – "A great love for Catholic-Orthodox unity as the only way to face the challenges of the modern world and a profound sadness for the self-imposed isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church are the main points Ecumenical Greek-Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I raised in his address to the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome."

Note the main points of the Patriarch's address:

1) Catholic-Orthodox unity needed to face the challenges of the modern world

2) the self-imposed isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church

The article then continues:

"They [Catholic-Orthodox unity and Russia's isolation] are also the main thrust in Metropolitan of Pergamon Ioannis Zizioulas’ comments to AsiaNews about the patriarch’s speech. For the latter the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church is one of “conservatism,” showing an inability to meet “the challenges of the modern world."

Now I have to agree that it is most strange that the news report says that the matter of the Russian Church's self-isolation was one of the two main points of the presentation by the EP. Yet the text which is now on the Web says not one word about this!!

It is doubly strange that the Metropolitan confirms that the Russian self-isolation was one of the major "thrusts" of the EP's speech. And yet again, it does not even exist in the text of the speech which is on the web.

Something is awry.

Has the online speech been edited so as not to offend the Russians? Did His Divine All-Holines realise he may have stepped over the line and virtually declared war on a sister Church from the precincts of the Vatican? Did the Vatican immediately see the enormous diplomatic gaffe in which it could be seen to be implicated? Why is the online text so very much at odds with the news report and with what the Metropolitan claimed the Patriarch's speech contained?

It is also possible that the author of the article in question inferred that the EP made Russia a point in his speech based on the comments of the Metropolitan John. I've seen journalistic error such as that before, and not as infrequently as I'd like.

Whether the Patriarch made such comments or not, I do know from my visit to the Phanar that the Patriarchate does take seriously its relationship with Moscow. Some of the Patriarchal staff were specially chosen for their ability to speak Russian in order to communicate with Moscow more effectively, and one of the deacons that we visited had spent a lot of time communicating (in person and correspondence) with the MP. Despite what we think, I seriously doubt that either one wants to alienate the other. However, it is a time-honored practice (even in Church relationships) to use third parties to convey messages even when one is in direct communication with the target audience - this has been a method of princes, patriarchs, and paupers for a long time. It wouldn't surprise me if comments were made without the intention of seeming hostile, but with the intention of "stirring the pot," so to speak. However, since the supposed comments of the Patriarch that are alluded to by the article do not seem to appear in the text of the speech, this is idle conjecture on my part - although my speculation would be as applicable to the seemingly straightforward comments of Metropolitan John.

Rome (AsiaNews) – "A great love for Catholic-Orthodox unity as the only way to face the challenges of the modern world and a profound sadness for the self-imposed isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church are the main points Ecumenical Greek-Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I raised in his address to the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome."

Note the main points of the Patriarch's address:

1) Catholic-Orthodox unity needed to face the challenges of the modern world

2) the self-imposed isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church

The article then continues:

"They [Catholic-Orthodox unity and Russia's isolation] are also the main thrust in Metropolitan of Pergamon Ioannis Zizioulas’ comments to AsiaNews about the patriarch’s speech. For the latter the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church is one of “conservatism,” showing an inability to meet “the challenges of the modern world."

Now I have to agree that it is most strange that the news report says that the matter of the Russian Church's self-isolation was one of the two main points of the presentation by the EP. Yet the text which is now on the Web says not one word about this!!

It is doubly strange that the Metropolitan confirms that the Russian self-isolation was one of the major "thrusts" of the EP's speech. And yet again, it does not even exist in the text of the speech which is on the web.

Something is awry.

Has the online speech been edited so as not to offend the Russians? Did His Divine All-Holines realise he may have stepped over the line and virtually declared war on a sister Church from the precincts of the Vatican? Did the Vatican immediately see the enormous diplomatic gaffe in which it could be seen to be implicated? Why is the online text so very much at odds with the news report and with what the Metropolitan claimed the Patriarch's speech contained?

Or maybe the news report from your "reputable" news source lied and attributed to the EP words he never spoke. Either way, there is certainly something fishy about these conflicting accounts.

Complete text of Bartholomew's lecture at the "Pontifical Oriental Institute"

On an unrelated note (and please, don't read any hostile intent into my question - there isn't any): why do you keep putting Pontifical Oriental Institute in quotation marks? It is a proper name of said institute, not some sort of nickname. Heck, it is a premiere institute for studying the Liturgy at the very least (this is the extent of my exposure to those who are at or came from the Institute).

Or maybe the news report from your "reputable" news source lied and attributed to the EP words he never spoke. Either way, there is certainly something fishy about these conflicting accounts.

I'm not finding any reason to consider AsiaNews a reputable and independent news source. Of course, it should be stated and emphasized that criticism of the source should not be taken as criticism of any users here quoting the source or relying on it; far from it. If it's the only source, then that's what we have to work with. However, if AsiaNews and the Pontifical Oriental Institute are reporting different things about the Patriarch's speech, I'll trust the Institute over AsiaNews any day, since the Institute has (at least to me) proven itself to be an esteemed establishment for higher learning.

I'm not finding any reason to consider AsiaNews a reputable and independent news source..... However, if AsiaNews and the Pontifical Oriental Institute are reporting different things about the Patriarch's speech, I'll trust the Institute over AsiaNews any day,

AsiaNews.it is a publication of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions so surely it has a little credence. :-)

Good point. A Vatican-leaning news agency sees discord between Moscow and Constantinople and thinks it big news. But can they grasp the fact that the two partiarchates have often been at odds with each other since the Russian Church dubbed Moscow the Third Rome several hundred years ago? This isn't news to the Orthodox. (FWIW, I don't mean to imply in my words that "Moscow: Third Rome" theory is the sole reason for such discord between the EP and MP, for I see both sides blameworthy in their divisiveness.)

You make a good point, but i think as of now, the real tensions is over the diocese of Sourozh and the newly created Russian Tradition Ecumenical exarchate (or whatever the heck its called). I do believe a schism is coming, and its only a matter of time before the MP will sever ties with the EP. The EP has been playing "brinkmanship" with Moscow and sooner or later the straw will break the camels back.

Yes, quite right. As you know, I have zero respect for this Patriarch because of his pro-choice stance on abortion. I wonder if his Catholic friends in Rome have ever realised that?

Well, if he were a Catholic patriarch, he would have been forced to retract that 1990 statement (if quoted accurately by the San Francisco newspaper). But he's EO, and the Ecumenical Patriarch to boot. Who else do we dialogue with?

Yes, jurisdiction fights in Estonia, stiring the pot in the Americas with sending Ligonier realing back and sending Spyridon to "set things right," capitulation at Ravenna, etc. some fruits.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But I see that I am not alone in my concerns about the actions of His Divine All-Holiness. Others have brought up their concerns, the last of whom is ialmisry:

Father a question when did this title come into existence his Divine all-holiness ...To me it dosen't sound right it sounds arrogant and pompous ,,it shows no humility....have there been any of our saints that were called anything similar while alive on earth...other then they calling them selfs extreme sinners or the worst of the worst as sign of them being very humble and holy.......oce blagoslovi...........stasko/stanislav

I guess the EP, who has about 2000 immediate followers, and whose selection has to be approved by the Turkish government (That IS right, isn't it?), is fighting for the very survival of the patriarchate any way he can.

It is also my understanding that the majority of Orthodox Christians are within the Slavic churches, and are not involved in most of the EP-Vatican stuff. So, the EP-Vatican efforts come across more as spin to me.

That is why we desire EO unity. No more Lyonses, Ferrara-Florences and Balamands, all of which just further divided the EO Churches. Hopefully the Holy Father makes that visit to Patriarch Alexei soon.

"Followers"?....... He's not a guru. He is a Bishop. The Oecumenical Patriarch has jurisdiction over the GO Churches of the Northern half of Greece, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The United Kingdom etc as well as all the monasteries of the Holy Mountain.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Ozgeorge is correct. The majority of Eastern Orthodox believers in the United States are in fact part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the USA, the Ukrainian Orthodox, EP, and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese are all part of the EP.

"Followers"?....... He's not a guru. He is a Bishop. The Oecumenical Patriarch has jurisdiction over the GO Churches of the Northern half of Greece, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The United Kingdom etc as well as all the monasteries of the Holy Mountain.

The fact remains that the majority of Orthodox Christians worldwide are not within any of the jurisdictions that commemorate him, regardless of his span of control as ecumenical patriarch, so a lot of what passes for progress between east and west, by way of the EP-Vatican meetings, ends up as just spin. A truly conciliar meeting could produce something different, assuming the Faithful (followers) agree.

"Followers"?....... He's not a guru. He is a Bishop. The Oecumenical Patriarch has jurisdiction over the GO Churches of the Northern half of Greece, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The United Kingdom etc as well as all the monasteries of the Holy Mountain.

His jurisdiction is not uncontested in all of the above.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The fact remains that the majority of Orthodox Christians worldwide are not within any of the jurisdictions that commemorate him, regardless of his span of control as ecumenical patriarch, so a lot of what passes for progress between east and west, by way of the EP-Vatican meetings, ends up as just spin. A truly conciliar meeting could produce something different, assuming the Faithful (followers) agree.

I know you're tying to make a good factual point, but accuracy on the details allows people to focus on your argument and less on the semantics. To wit:

The fact remains that the majority of Orthodox Christians worldwide are not within any of the jurisdictions that commemorate him

The "jurisdictions that commemorate him" are the Autocephalous Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church; just as the Jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate commemorates the Patriarchs of Moscow, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. - a "jurisdiction" commemorates through it's head, and they commemorate the other heads.

a lot of what passes for progress between east and west, by way of the EP-Vatican meetings, ends up as just spin. A truly conciliar meeting could produce something different, assuming the Faithful (followers) agree.

Now, as to your actual argument:

I don't think it is totally "spin." There has been a definite shift in relations between, say, 1800 and the present, one that is present across the board. So saying it's total "spin" is over-doing it a bit. However, on the other hand, the negotiations of one bishop (even if it is the Ecumenical Patriarch) is meaningless if not ratified by a synod; even agreements made by the EP must be ratified by the Synod of Constantinople in order to be binding on the Churches of the Patriarchate - if there is no ratification, then the agreement is only binding on the immediate jurisdiction - i.e. Constantinople and Mt. Athos and the Stavropegial monasteries and parishes. So, on that level, any dialogue, even if the MP is involved, is just "spin" until it is voted upon (the critical lesson of Florence).

Thank you, Cleveland. I suppose only time will tell if the Ravenna conference, etc. has a wider impact than it may have on the immediate participants.

Yeah. I always try to look on the bright side, but cautious optimism should be the phrase of the day with regards to this. Reunion is good, only if built on a foundation of true faith and worship; to paraphrase the Lord: "what good does it profit a Church to gain the whole world but to lose its soul?"

Well - the archdioceses within the Ecumenical Patriarchate are not contesting it, so yes, it is uncontested. You're bringing up something which is not relevant to the conversation (i.e. interpretation of "barbarians," and whether the Ecumenical Patriarchate has sole jurisdiction over lands not granted explicitly to the other Patriarchates, and such).

The fact remains that the majority of Orthodox Christians worldwide are not within any of the jurisdictions that commemorate him, regardless of his span of control as ecumenical patriarch, so a lot of what passes for progress between east and west, by way of the EP-Vatican meetings, ends up as just spin. A truly conciliar meeting could produce something different, assuming the Faithful (followers) agree.

Constantinople still maintains the Canonical Authority over the Church as well as diplomatic preeminence...saddly, political influence and authority has diminished since the fall of the Empire. She has tried to keep the Church together and inline using the authority she has and has done quite well, but with the rise of nationalistic churches in the 19th century the entire Orthodox communion has been placed in peril. Perhaps the best manoeuvre at this point would be to strengthen relations with the west, even at the expense of relations with the Russians and then, weilding greater political force, bring the Russians back into line. This is not to say that we should abandon our progress and embrace the kooky western notions of sin, fear of sex, and anti-science hysteria...but who knows, perhaps we can influence the west to abandon these things helping bring progress and enlightenment to everyone in the process.

For one thing, the existence of churches belonging to other autocephalous Churches in all of the named places.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Constantinople still maintains the Canonical Authority over the Church as well as diplomatic preeminence...saddly, political influence and authority has diminished since the fall of the Empire. She has tried to keep the Church together and inline using the authority she has and has done quite well, but with the rise of nationalistic churches in the 19th century the entire Orthodox communion has been placed in peril. Perhaps the best manoeuvre at this point would be to strengthen relations with the west, even at the expense of relations with the Russians and then, weilding greater political force, bring the Russians back into line. This is not to say that we should abandon our progress and embrace the kooky western notions of sin, fear of sex, and anti-science hysteria...but who knows, perhaps we can influence the west to abandon these things helping bring progress and enlightenment to everyone in the process.

Spoken like a true gentile, on all points.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth